Bruce S. Ticker - 01/21/04
Tell us quickly what will happen to you if you kidnap someone, hold him hostage and threaten to murder him.
If caught and convicted, you’ll go to jail for a long time. Those are serious crimes.
George W. Bush may well have committed these very crimes. We could find out roughly six months from now should the Supreme Court rule that he kidnapped up to 18 individuals, held them against their will and threatened to kill them if Bush’s minions reached a judgment that they deserve to die.
The court will not use those words if it rules that the federal government – on Bush’s orders – violated the Constitution in one to three cases which could reach the court for arguments in April. Two detainees are American citizens and the rest are foreigners all of whom were detained for long periods without access to attorneys. All but one was captured while reportedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This means that if Bush was not authorized to detain even one of them, then he violated some basic criminal laws, very serious criminal laws which clearly meet the Constitution’s standards for impeachment. Under this scenario, the act of seizing these people and then detaining them without providing them access to due process amounts to kidnapping and illegal detention. Announcing that trials of these prisoners could result in the death sentence constitutes terroristic threats.
Of course, if the government carries out a death sentence without constitutional authorization, then Bush would have conspired to commit murder.
If the court rules against Bush in even one case, he should be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate, thereby evicting him from the White House. Then he should be prosecuted not only for the above-mentioned crimes but also for abusing his office and, if convicted, jailed for years.
The latest test case focuses on Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen of Saudi descent who, the government says, was fighting with a unit of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 which surrendered to the Northern Alliance; American forces were aligned with the alliance, according to a New York Times account.
He has been confined to a military brig in South Carolina for two years without charges and – prior to last month – without access to an attorney. His case will be heard in April.
Hamdi’s attorney, federal public defender Frank Dunham, told The Philadelphia Inquirer, “The government has made accusations, and based solely on those accusations, he has been held incommunicado without any trial, without any counsel, and without any chance to review the charges. That shouldn’t happen to any U.S. citizen.”
In the case of Jose Padilla, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said in December that Bush committed those crimes – again, not in those words. The court ruled that the government lacked authority to hold Padilla in military custody after he was arrested in May 2002 when he arrived at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on a flight from Pakistan, the Times reported. He was originally held as a material witness on suspicion of involvement in a plot to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States.
The administration is appealing the Padilla decision and the appeal could be heard by the court at the same time as the Hamdi case.
The Supreme Court will also hear an appeal in April for 16 foreigners held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Nobody in his right mind could want terrorists free to harm this country, but based on Bush’s record he could be cutting corners that are not necessary. Other law enforcement authorities might have been effective without sacrificing the Constitution and committing crimes themselves.
Maybe Bush and his people just could not resist the opportunity
Tell us quickly what will happen to you if you kidnap someone, hold him hostage and threaten to murder him.
If caught and convicted, you’ll go to jail for a long time. Those are serious crimes.
George W. Bush may well have committed these very crimes. We could find out roughly six months from now should the Supreme Court rule that he kidnapped up to 18 individuals, held them against their will and threatened to kill them if Bush’s minions reached a judgment that they deserve to die.
The court will not use those words if it rules that the federal government – on Bush’s orders – violated the Constitution in one to three cases which could reach the court for arguments in April. Two detainees are American citizens and the rest are foreigners all of whom were detained for long periods without access to attorneys. All but one was captured while reportedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This means that if Bush was not authorized to detain even one of them, then he violated some basic criminal laws, very serious criminal laws which clearly meet the Constitution’s standards for impeachment. Under this scenario, the act of seizing these people and then detaining them without providing them access to due process amounts to kidnapping and illegal detention. Announcing that trials of these prisoners could result in the death sentence constitutes terroristic threats.
Of course, if the government carries out a death sentence without constitutional authorization, then Bush would have conspired to commit murder.
If the court rules against Bush in even one case, he should be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate, thereby evicting him from the White House. Then he should be prosecuted not only for the above-mentioned crimes but also for abusing his office and, if convicted, jailed for years.
The latest test case focuses on Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen of Saudi descent who, the government says, was fighting with a unit of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 which surrendered to the Northern Alliance; American forces were aligned with the alliance, according to a New York Times account.
He has been confined to a military brig in South Carolina for two years without charges and – prior to last month – without access to an attorney. His case will be heard in April.
Hamdi’s attorney, federal public defender Frank Dunham, told The Philadelphia Inquirer, “The government has made accusations, and based solely on those accusations, he has been held incommunicado without any trial, without any counsel, and without any chance to review the charges. That shouldn’t happen to any U.S. citizen.”
In the case of Jose Padilla, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said in December that Bush committed those crimes – again, not in those words. The court ruled that the government lacked authority to hold Padilla in military custody after he was arrested in May 2002 when he arrived at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on a flight from Pakistan, the Times reported. He was originally held as a material witness on suspicion of involvement in a plot to detonate a “dirty bomb” in the United States.
The administration is appealing the Padilla decision and the appeal could be heard by the court at the same time as the Hamdi case.
The Supreme Court will also hear an appeal in April for 16 foreigners held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Nobody in his right mind could want terrorists free to harm this country, but based on Bush’s record he could be cutting corners that are not necessary. Other law enforcement authorities might have been effective without sacrificing the Constitution and committing crimes themselves.
Maybe Bush and his people just could not resist the opportunity
